So having multiple QMQP machines as opposed to a single machine wouldn't
deliver the mail faster? We've already got the LocalDirector in place
doing other things and we wanted to utilize it for this if we could.
For this usage, its not a matter of redundant failover, but more a
matter of load balancing, so that 3 machines can deliver millions of
emails faster than a single one could.
Am I wrong in my thinking here?
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 3:53 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: Recommended patches for high-volume ezmlm server
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 08:40:53AM -0800, Don Rose wrote:
> Actually the lists are only announcement-type lists so users won't be
> posting, so the only messages that should be queued are like you said
> the bounce probes, and the messages the mods post to it.
>
> I was thinking of setting up 2 or 3 QMQP servers on a LocalDirector to
> handle the actual sending of the messages, so the original machine
isn't
> too busy to recieve new mail.
Using a LocalDirector for QMQP is overkill. If one of your QMQP
servers is down, the 'clients' will use another one automatically.
This just means a slight delay, and nothing to worry about.
Greetz, Peter.
